The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

China can carry on as much as she likes about her power, and she can bluff and bully the PACRIM and SCS nations/states, but she's a golden mile away from being able to win a real war. take away her nukes and she's toothless against a major power. she's nowhere near the capability of the soviets and the US was in a constant war tempo accordingly.

what she does have in spades is "political will and intent" - which is the kind of thing critical to carrying the day

Nationalism is surging in China with their recent debut as a major power. While I think the PLA probably has a good grasp of their actual abilities, I'm not sure the average Chinese citizen will see past the dog and pony show. The very nationalism that the CCP encourages could turn around and bite them if they overplay their hand and are forced into a conflict due to being unable to de-escalate in the wake of some kind of incident due to popular demand. Alternatively the PLA may actually want to encourage a limited conflict to gain operational experience with the force they've been building.

The most likely conflict in either scenario is probably with Vietnam. There will be any number of incidents in the next decade between the two countries over fishing and resource development in the SCS, and Vietnam is not allied to the US.

You still need transmit power. Bouncing a signal up doesn't reduce the distance needed to reach the dish, in fact, it increases it.

I disagree, a sat phone lets a guy in Africa talk to someone in Canada with very little transmission power because it only has to reach up to hit the closest satellite. The satellite then boosts the signal and relays it to the intended destination. The total distance the signal must travel is increased, but because the signal is boosted and relayed, the sat phone can remain a compact and low powered device.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And this does not even read in contention the radar power needed to find the carrier ... which again, makes it a target.

China already operates the S-300, so they have access to Low Probability of Intercept radar. Even if it does trip a RWR, knowing a stealth aircraft is operating in your general vicinity is not the same as being able to generate a weapons track.

I'm not arguing that the DF-21D is a threat to the USN today, but I do think it is far more plausible as an operational weapons system in the near term than Russian claims of "plasma stealth" and "radio-optical phased arrays".

I disagree, a sat phone lets a guy in Africa talk to someone in Canada with very little transmission power because it only has to reach up to hit the closest satellite. The satellite then boosts the signal and relays it to the intended destination. The total distance the signal must travel is increased, but because the signal is boosted and relayed, the sat phone can remain a compact and low powered device.

But the USN knows where that sat is and would be monitoring.

Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate

China already operates the S-300, so they have access to Low Probability of Intercept radar. Even if it does trip a RWR, knowing a stealth aircraft is operating in your general vicinity is not the same as being able to generate a weapons track.

Your field of view is way too small for locating a spec on the ocean.

Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate

I'm not arguing that the DF-21D is a threat to the USN today, but I do think it is far more plausible as an operational weapons system in the near term than Russian claims of "plasma stealth" and "radio-optical phased arrays".

It isn't a threat because it doesn't exist. The technical and tactical hurdles are way too many to make it a viable system.

China already operates the S-300, so they have access to Low Probability of Intercept radar. Even if it does trip a RWR, knowing a stealth aircraft is operating in your general vicinity is not the same as being able to generate a weapons track.

you do realise that the US has an S300 system so its pretty aware of its strengths and foibles... its in the public domain albeit not exactly common knowledge (eg not a wiki retrieval)

the US has far more familiarity with these oft touted uber systems than most people realise or appreciate.

I'm also in that tribe of sceptics re DF21 capability and as some uber solution. there are far too many things not done and not apparent that are needed and so make me question the strength of chinese military conviction that they have a carrier killer

you do realise that the US has an S300 system so its pretty aware of its strengths and foibles... its in the public domain albeit not exactly common knowledge (eg not a wiki retrieval)

the US has far more familiarity with these oft touted uber systems than most people realise or appreciate.

I'm also in that tribe of sceptics re DF21 capability and as some uber solution. there are far too many things not done and not apparent that are needed and so make me question the strength of chinese military conviction that they have a carrier killer

in texas I believe the expression is "all hat and no head"

If you ask me, the DF-21D has been a very good misdirection run by the Mainland (while they focus their efforts on cruise missiles of every speed regime). And troubles in the SCS also have the benefit of making sure that we Americans are running around in Southeast Asia, instead of the Taiwan Straits.

agree in broad terms with this. there's a lot of hype coming out of the chinese bloggers and fan boi sites - but when you look at their systems of systems capability, look at their purple ability, look at each advanced tech and consider how it fits into the broader force construct, then for me at least I think its basically colour and movement over actual capability

that doesn't meant that they don't deserve respect - as fighting within their home layers of the onion is just idiotic, never fight to a countries strengths - but I look at their sub technology and capability, aircraft developments, ship developments, original tech as opposed to stolen/copied or redundant improved tech - and they're a formidable regional power.

the navy (skimmers and subs) is nowhere as capable as the japanese, they have a continental army, and they have an airforce that cannot project (which is why the rush to build land based aircraft carriers in the SCS and ECS)

for me there is a whole lot that doesn't make sense with the DF21 "uber weapon" hysteria. I go back to the late 80's early 90's when US Mil Services over egged what they needed to get through congress, even though they new that the russians/soviets/warpac was a spent force.

China can carry on as much as she likes about her power, and she can bluff and bully the PACRIM and SCS nations/states, but she's a golden mile away from being able to win a real war. take away her nukes and she's toothless against a major power. she's nowhere near the capability of the soviets and the US was in a constant war tempo accordingly.

what she does have in spades is "political will and intent" - which is the kind of thing critical to carrying the day

What makes up for China's lack of military power projection is its huge propaganda machine, which is at the central core of CCP's operational policies. That went International in 2009, when they opened a 24 hour English news channel, to present the CCPs' views to a wider international audience. I know you know this, but many don't.

Xinhua: the world's biggest propaganda agency, this was a 2005 report from Reporters Without Borders. Why does China need the great firewall? It's not just to suppress dissent or for domestic propaganda. Control of media, spin doctors (50 cent party), thought reforms.

Most businesses from around the world find it tough in China. Google, Tesla are some examples. In a globalized world, China puts huge taxes on foreign brands which make them uncompetitive with Chinese brands. Had there been fair play, there would be no Alibaba or Baidu or the numerous other internet companies, which are American innovations.

Apart from domestic propaganda, the external ones include - peaceful rise, CCP has evolved is no longer an authoritarian regime, China does not see US as a rival and wants US to play a role in the region's security and economy. Basically, winning wars through psyops even without firing a single shot.

I was monitoring an Indian site where 50 centers are active. Just after the Hague ruling kicked in, they started posting the same thing over and over again, directed at Indian internet audience, some of which were - India is a small country, India is not a member of P5 and cannot do anything, Pakistan is suffering from India sponsored terrorism, NASA scientists were involved in India's Mars mission. And a lot of other BS.

If you ask me, the DF-21D has been a very good misdirection run by the Mainland (while they focus their efforts on cruise missiles of every speed regime). And troubles in the SCS also have the benefit of making sure that we Americans are running around in Southeast Asia, instead of the Taiwan Straits.

Misdirection for whom? Surely not the guys in the field

No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

The Nationalism banner is a useful distraction for the lack of freedoms at home.

I was actually of the opinion that 50 centers knew about these BS.

So, 50 centers lap it up and post all over the numerous domestic boards. They also do that in international boards. For countries to give in without a fight or atleast to agree to Chinese terms, Colonel Sir?

Fortifying the islands with rocket launchers, if proved to be true, will only demonstrate Vietnam's determination to strengthen its military deployment.

Vietnam has been enhancing its control of the islets and islands in Nansha in order to consolidate the beneficial status quo. Vietnam's Foreign Ministry has reportedly said the information about the rocket launchers is "inaccurate," though it did not elaborate.

We hope that the report is only speculation from Western media. The international arbitration of the South China Sea disputes failed to produce a result the West thinks desirable. After the arbitration, Manila and Beijing have been engaging in bilateral talks to repair battered relationship.

It can be expected that the West won't easily give up using arbitration as leverage to pile pressure on China and continue to stoke more tensions in the region. The regional stakeholders should be wary of the West's tactics.

If Vietnam's latest deployment is targeting China, that would be a terrible mistake. We hope Vietnam will remember and draw some lessons from history.